U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-04-2018, 03:31 PM
 
9,335 posts, read 3,880,641 times
Reputation: 13774

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by westender View Post
The beer purchase is optional, but I agree with the point.

However, I believe this thread is talking about taxpayers' taxes being diverted to pensions, when those taxpayers themselves do not have a pension.
how is it any different than a company getting a tax break to increase their profits that then get funneled into 401k via match/bonus? a pension is no different aside from the terms of the benefit

and before someone says not everyone gets a pension, well not everyone gets a 401k either... stop trying to change the benefits of others because you don't like your own

but realistically, if people wanted a "pension", they could use their own 401k contribution + matching and buy an annuity inside the 401k these days. that would be the same as a pension where both you and employer contribute to it. the payout would be around the same if going by the fers calculation, unless someone digs up a plan that isn't around anymore. current fers = 4.4% on employee contribution. if they want the tsp match, they have to put in another ~8-10% for full matching. so a fed employee puts in at minimum ~12-15%. outside the fed, the average contribution is slightly lower than the already low 15%.

Last edited by MLSFan; 12-04-2018 at 03:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-04-2018, 06:13 PM
 
5,304 posts, read 2,444,109 times
Reputation: 5174
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLSFan View Post
how is it any different than a company getting a tax break to increase their profits that then get funneled into 401k via match/bonus? a pension is no different aside from the terms of the benefit

and before someone says not everyone gets a pension, well not everyone gets a 401k either... stop trying to change the benefits of others because you don't like your own

but realistically, if people wanted a "pension", they could use their own 401k contribution + matching and buy an annuity inside the 401k these days. that would be the same as a pension where both you and employer contribute to it. the payout would be around the same if going by the fers calculation, unless someone digs up a plan that isn't around anymore. current fers = 4.4% on employee contribution. if they want the tsp match, they have to put in another ~8-10% for full matching. so a fed employee puts in at minimum ~12-15%. outside the fed, the average contribution is slightly lower than the already low 15%.

Public sector defined benefit plans, and private sector defined contribution plans, aren't even remotely similar (except for being retirement plans).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2018, 09:20 PM
 
66 posts, read 31,487 times
Reputation: 116
The only Taxes that the working class people pay that diverts to Pensions, As Far As I Know, is the Military and our Politicians(plus their employee staffs). I support the Military Pensions. I don't so much support the self raises that our Politicians get for Pensions.

Okay, maybe State Employees. They get pensions supported by State Taxes.

Unions get union dues.(Not really sure on this one, never have been in the union)

Post Office is fully self sufficient, and don't received tax revenues.(stamps/shipping)

Social Security, well , if you look at your pay stubs, we all pay into that, and hope there is something there when the time comes, to receive that back.

But, I always learn something new every day. And I'm sure someone here will educate me some more.
Oh, this is direct-tax to-pension. Not indirect like buying any commercial products, 401ks, stock markets.

So, do I support taxes to go to Pensions for people that get it and I don't, well for the Military I definitely do.
Well, I better throw in the State Tax supported Pensions of the "Blue" and Fire Fighters, which I would also support.

Last edited by txwolfman; 12-04-2018 at 09:48 PM.. Reason: text edit
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2018, 10:18 PM
 
9,335 posts, read 3,880,641 times
Reputation: 13774
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Public sector defined benefit plans, and private sector defined contribution plans, aren't even remotely similar (except for being retirement plans).
private sector had defined benefits too, no one thought it was a problem until it went away... now they think it is a problem because they want theirs? if I can't have it, no one can?

bet you think public sector shouldn't get paid too? because it is "tax" money?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:14 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,917 posts, read 9,649,513 times
Reputation: 15352
It makes little sense for private sector employers to offer non-portable defined benefit pension plans in the modern era. Private sector employees change employers all the time - every few years or so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:02 PM
 
5,304 posts, read 2,444,109 times
Reputation: 5174
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLSFan View Post
private sector had defined benefits too, no one thought it was a problem until it went away... now they think it is a problem because they want theirs? if I can't have it, no one can?
They went away because they became untenable.

Quote:
bet you think public sector shouldn't get paid too? because it is "tax" money?
What would lead you to that conclusion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:49 AM
 
3,639 posts, read 2,073,494 times
Reputation: 8315
This argument will ultimately end in a stale mate.

Those who have pensions ( especially failed or prone to fail) will say YES and WANT tax payers to be sure to pay in order for them get their failed pension.

Those who never had or dont have a pension will say NO and will NOT want to pay for a failed pension.

So it will be a stalemate.

The govt or supreme court will have to decide and some will be happy while others unhappy.

My personal opinion is CORPORATIONS AND COMPANIES that fail their pensions while paying CEOs and iver high level execs multiples of millions of dollars SHOULD be tye ones held accountable. But if you put a corporation out of business doing that there will never be a chance for them to pay their pensions.
If your corporation renegs on pensions, its them you need to go after, not the general taxpayers
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top